Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, one of Colorado's most prominent newspapers, the Colorado Springs Gazette, celebrated 125 years of service to the Pikes Peak region on March 23, 1997. Although known as the Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph since 1947, the newspaper used its 125th birthday as an opportunity to return to its earlier roots as the Colorado Springs Gazette. Colorado Springs is one of Colorado's most vibrant communities having experienced tremendous growth in recent decades. It is home to some of our Nation's most important military facilities such as Fort Carson Army Base, Falcon Air Force Base, the U.S. Air Force Academy and NORAD, U.S. Space Command, and the Air Force Space Command at Peterson Air Force Base. Most recently, several prominent family values advocacy organizations have located in Colorado Springs. The founder of the newspaper, Gen. William Jackson Palmer, also is regarded as the founder of Colorado Springs. In fact, as the 125th anniversary edition of the Gazette pointed out, the city and the newspaper literally grew up together. The colorful history of Colorado Springs has been chronicled for 125 years in the pages of the Colorado Springs Gazette and I join the State of Colorado in wishing its publisher, N. Christian Anderson III and the entire Gazette staff, congratulations.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the cloture vote on S. 104. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997 is a crucial piece of legislation that deserves the support of both sides of Capitol Hill and the administration. It is responsible legislation, necessary legislation, and legislation that when enacted will provide the utmost safety for our constituents. S. 104 provides for the safe transport of nuclear waste from numerous sites around the Nation to one safe, central location in Yucca Mountain. The Department of Energy must, by November 30, 1998, be accepting waste on an interim basis at the facility. By December 31, 2002, the DOE would be required to apply for authorization to construct a permanent repository at the site. To put this in context we should examine the alternative to this legislation. Absent this legislation, or action by the courts, costs will continue to be accrued on our constituents. For example, storage of used nuclear fuel at an operating nuclear reactor can cost $34 to $50 million. More importantly from Colorado's perspective it is estimated that keeping spent fuel on site where the reactor has shut down can cost $46 to $64 million. While Colorado currently has no operating nuclear reactors, they do have one commercial facility that has a shut down nuclear reactor, Ft. St. Vrain. Currently, the costs of storage at Ft. St. Vrain are being paid by DOE, if DOE is forced to pick up similar costs around the Nation, it will be a hefty bill that I'm not sure they can afford. Colorado also is home to Rocky Flats, a facility that formerly made nuclear triggers. That facility also has waste that will ultimately end up at Yucca Mountain. What other alternatives are there? If the court is forced to decide the issue and they require the Federal Government to pay the cost of onsite storage, American taxpayers would pay $7.7 billion over the cost of one central temporary storage facility. Furthermore, additional costs from inaction could range from $40 to $80 billion. Where would this money come from? Additionally, if this legislation isn't passed, the next opportunity Coloradans will have for removal of this material will be in 2015. I find this unacceptable currently, Colorado has waste stored near millions of people on the Front Range. It is a hazard that we should fix, and this legislation is part of fixing that problem. Both of these sites have waste that will ultimately be shipped to Yucca Mountain. From Ft. St. Vrain there is about 16 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and from Rocky Flats there is contaminated plutonium that, once it is vitrified, will be sent to Yucca Mountain. My State needs this legislation, and has paid for this legislation, since the inception of the waste fee Colorado has paid roughly $300,000 to the Nuclear Waste Management Program. We expect the Federal Government to honor its commitment. Congress has the obligation to support this legislation with or without support from the administration. We have an obligation to act responsibly, even if the administration won't. Once again I thank Mr. Craig and Mr. Murkowski for their leadership. Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a fine American, a great father and a good friend, Paul Hoshiko of Eaton, Colorado. Paul recently passed away, but left behind him a legacy of accomplishment and achievement that deserves to be recognized by all Americans. To many, Paul Hoshiko was known as a leader in the agricultural arena. To others he was known for his civic involvement and his donation of time and money for various charities. I knew him not only in those regards, but also as a moral man who put his family first; who had a deep and abiding faith in his God; and one who was an unabashed patriot. But in all regards and to all who knew him, Paul Hoshiko, was admired and respected. He served on numerous boards and committees throughout his life which showed his standing in the community. One of the most prestigious positions he held was his appointment by the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to the Colorado State Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee. Some other organizations he was involved with were the Extension Advisory Committee, Colorado Seed Growers Association, Central Weld Water District, member of Kersey & Greeley area Chamber of Commerce, member of Weld County Farm Bureau, Director of Lower Latham Reservoir for over 30 years, and the hospital foundation, among others. He received countless awards from these associations which illustrate his leadership and influence. Paul was perhaps best known around the country as the ``onion king''. In fact, his sole appearance on commercial television (at least so far as I know) was standing in an onion field explaining to a future U.S. Senator what it took, ``to be a good onion man''. He was elected to the Board of the National Onion Association and served as president for five years. During his tenure the national office was moved to Greeley, Colorado. He served on the board of directors of this association until his death. However, perhaps most notable and dearest to his heart, Paul should be recognized for his lifelong devotion to the 4-H program. He actively participated in this organization his entire life, both as a member and as a leader. He was continuously taking strides to make 4-H an astronomical success, including but not limited to his active involvement in the International Farm Youth Exchange program, the National Western Stock Show, an annual State 4-H golf tournament, and a 4-H lighted softball field. He made a tremendous impact on those lives he touched while partaking in the 4-H program. His devotion is reflected in the faces of those youth who had the opportunity to work with him in these projects. In summary, Mr. President, as you can see by my remarks, Paul was a born leader. He gave to his family, community, church and region unselfishly. He was the kind of man who only comes along every so often . . . and his life deserves to be recognized.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, while I regret that I have to vote against Ambassador Barshefsky's worthy nomination, I believe as lawmakers we must not only strive to enact the best laws but also to obey not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of the law. Why do we pass laws if the first time they become problematic, we decide to grant a waiver. In the last couple of months, I have heard too many politicians say that it was out of necessity that they bend the law or ignore the spirit of the law or assume that it may not be illegal, and then promise it will not happen again. My solution to this dilemma is to follow the law or repeal it. While in the other body, I voted for the Lobbying Disclosure Act and have consistently promised my constituents that I will work hard to enact congressional reform. In this vein, I cannot turn my back on them or on the law that I fought hard to enact. I understand why many will vote for this waiver because Ambassador Barshefsky would make a tremendous USTR, but I must regretfully vote no and only hope that this waiver granting procedure doesn't start a bad precedent for the future. In conclusion, I am voting against the Hollings amendment and the waiver.

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Delaware for yielding me some time. Madam President, today we must decide to vote in favor of a waiver to allow a very competent and worthy candidate to be the new U.S. Trade Representative or to vote to uphold current law. I have decided to uphold current law. It must be made clear that I do not doubt the competency and ability of Ambassador Barshefsky to faithfully serve as the next U.S. Trade Representative. She has done a tremendous job as the Deputy USTR and has proven herself to be a competent public servant. The law we are asked to waive is not some arcane law that has been on the books for decades which may have served us well in the past but is a law that was passed only 2 years ago. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 was a very important piece of legislation that opened the doors to the public to see who is attempting to influence our elected officials. Section 21 of the act specifically states that no person who has represented a foreign entity may be appointed as a U.S. Trade Representative or the Deputy U.S. Trade Representative. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record section 21 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act and from the United States Code section 2171(b).

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his fine work and debate here on the floor on the balanced budget amendment. I am going to vote for the balanced budget amendment because I am going to keep my campaign promise that I made during the election. It is not a campaign promise that I made lightly. I have voted for this very same proposal as a Member of the 105th Congress as a Member of the House of Representatives. I have served in a State that has a balanced budget requirement. I have been the owner of a business that has had to balance its budget. I have been a part of a family that has had to balance its budget. I think it is important for the future of our children and our grandchildren that we balance the budget. The only way I see us ever eliminating deficit spending is to pass a requirement in the Constitution that says that we have to balance the budget. For 28 years, we have heard from both Republicans and Democrats on the importance of balancing the budget. That is why I am casting my vote for a balanced budget amendment today. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, while I believe that States should have the opportunity to set limits for their elected officials, as Colorado has done on a number of occasions, the Supreme Court's decision has left this important decision up to us. Some have argued that there is little chance that Members of Congress will ever limit their own terms and thereby limit their power. While there is some merit to this argument, I must say that this gives us a great opportunity to show that we, as elected officials, can heed the will of the people and impose term-limits on ourselves. I began fighting for term-limits while in the State Senate of Colorado and was one of four State Senators to stand-up on the Colorado Senate floor in favor of them. As a Member of the House of Representatives, I introduced and co-sponsored numerous pieces of term- limit legislation. I was very proud to be a part of the 104th Congress where we voted for the first time in history on a term-limit constitutional amendment. I have always believed that our elected officials should be citizen legislators. Citizens from all walks of life with new ideas, thoughts and private work experience fresh in their memory should have a chance to serve. Term-limits will ensure that lawmakers do not become too far- removed from their constituents and will allow more citizens the opportunity to serve. Our legislatures will have a better understanding of main street and how their laws and actions affect the everyday lives of working men and women. We find the concept of a citizen legislature in the very foundation of this country. In Article 57 of the Federalist Papers, my most admired historical figure, James Madison wrote: The aim of every political constitution is, or ought to be, first to obtain for rulers men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous whilest they continue to hold their public trust. The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government. The means relied on in this form of government for preventing their degeneracy are numerous and various. The most effectual one is such a limitation of the term of appointments as will maintain a proper responsibility to the people. Mr. President, I wholehearted agree with Mr. Madison and his assessment. Despite the large classes in 1994 and 1996, incumbent re- election rates still exceed 90 percent. Term-limits at the State and local levels have made our elections more open and competitive thereby opening the doors to all Americans and allowing for a more diverse legislature. Federal elections would be re-energized by opening-up politics to many people who have been excluded by career incumbents. If people call for more representation by women and minorities, then they should be strong supporters of term-limits. In 1992, 22 of the 24 new women elected to the U.S. House of Representatives were elected in open seats, but only 2 of the 42 women candidates who challenged an incumbent were successful. While I agree with many who call for campaign finance reform, only term-limits will truly change the incentives for seeking office. They are a positive tool to break the cycle of excluding those citizens who want to run for election to Federal office but cannot overcome the largest obstacle of all--incumbency and name identification--regardless of the campaign laws and the amount spent on a campaign. I have also heard that if the Framers believed term-limits were so important, they would have placed them in the Constitution from the outset. This is the same argument I hear concerning the Balanced Budget amendment. My belief is that the Framers never thought persistent deficits or spending one's career in political office would be a problem. They believed that serving would always be a brief period in one's life and would never be seen as a career. However, it is now clear that only a Constitutional amendment getting term-limits will ensure that the citizen legislator is reestablished as envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. I am pleased to carry on the tradition and hard work of my predecessor Senator Hank Brown. Senator Brown was a leader in this body for term-limits and I am proud to serve in a like manner and continue to fight for term-limits and the will of the people of Colorado. Mr. President, early in this session, we will have an opportunity to make good on our campaign promises on term-limits. We must bring business-as-usual to an end and return the power back to the people. I urge all my colleagues to join this fight and begin to make true changes in the way this Congress operates. It is time to bring back the citizen legislator and reconnect our elected officials to the people whom they serve. Exhibit 1 Proposal of Text of Amendment 12--Term Limits Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado: Article XVIII, section 12. (1) Congressional term limits amendment. The exact language for addition to the United States Constitution follows: Section 1: No person shall serve in the office of United States Representative for more than three terms, but upon ratification of this amendment no person who has held the office of United States Representative or who then holds the office shall serve for more than two additional terms. Section 2: No person shall serve in the office of United States Senator for more than two terms, but upon ratification of this amendment no person who has held the office of United States Senator or who then holds the office shall serve for more than one additional term. Section 3: This amendment shall have no time limit within which it must be ratified to become operative upon the ratification of the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states. (2) Voter instruction to state legislators. (a) The voters instruct each state legislator to vote to apply for an amendment-proposing convention under Article V of the United States Constitution and to ratify the Congressional Term Limits Amendment when referred to the states. (b) All election ballots shall have ``disregarded voter instruction on term limits'' designated next to the name of each state legislator who fails to comply with the terms of subsection (5)(b). (c) Said ballot designation shall not appear after the Colorado legislature has made an Article V application that has not been withdrawn and has ratified the Congressional Term Limits Amendment, when proposed. (3) Voter instruction to members of congress. (a) The voters instruct each member of the congressional delegation to approve the Congressional Term Limits Amendment. (b) All election ballots shall have ``disregarded voter instruction on term limits'' designated next to the name of each member of Congress who fails to comply with the terms of subsection (5)(b). (c) Said ballot designation shall not appear after the Congressional Term Limits Amendment is before the states for ratification. (4) Voter instruction to non-incumbents. The words ``declined to take pledge to support term limits'' shall be designated on all primary and general election ballots next to the names of non-incumbent candidates for United States senator, United States representative, state senator, and state representative who have not signed the pledge to support term limits unless the Colorado legislature has ratified the Congressional Term Limits Amendment. The pledge shall read: I pledge to use all my legislative powers to enact the proposed Congressional Term Limits Amendment set forth in Article XVIII, section 12. If elected, I pledge to vote in such a way that the designation ``disregarded voter instruction term limits'' will not appear next to my name. Signature of Candidate: (5) Designation process. (a) The Colorado secretary of state shall determine these ballot designations. The ballot designation shall appear unless clear and convincing evidence establishes that the candidate has honored voter instructions or signed the pledge in this subsection (4). Challenges to designation or lack of designation shall be filed with the Colorado supreme court within 5 days of the determination and shall be decided within 21 days after filing. Determinations shall be made public 30 days or more before the Colorado secretary of state certifies the ballot. (b) Non-compliance with voter instruction is demonstrated by any of the following actions with respect to the application or ratification by state legislators, and in the case of members of Congress referring the Congressional Term Limits Amendment for ratification, if the legislator: (i) fails to vote in favor when brought to a vote; (ii) fails to second if it lacks one; (iii) fails to vote in favor of all votes bringing the measure before any committee in which he or she serves; (iv) fails to propose or otherwise bring to a vote of the full legislative body, if necessary; (v) fails to vote against any attempt to delay, table or otherwise prevent a vote by the full legislative body or committee; (vi) fails in any way to ensure that all votes are recorded and made available to the public; (vii) fails to vote against any change, addition or modification; or (viii) fails to vote against any amendment with longer limits than the Congressional Term Limits Amendment. (6) Enforcement. Any legal challenge to this section 12 shall be an original action filed with the Colorado supreme court. All terms of this section 12 are severable.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, first I would like to thank my colleague from Missouri for taking the lead on this important issue of term- limits. Term-limits has been a concern of the people of Colorado for many years. They have said time and time again that the hour has come for Congressional term-limits and I share this belief. That is why I am a proud sponsor of Senate Joint Resolution 16, the Ashcroft-Thompson Term Limitation bill which limits Representatives to 6 years in the House and Senators to 12 years in the Senate. In 1990 with 71 percent of the vote, the State of Colorado was the first State to pass a constitutional amendment limiting the number of years for Congressional Members--12 years in the House of Representatives and 12 years in the Senate. Four years later, Colorado passed a more restrictive term limit initiative of 6 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. Since 1990, 22 other States passed some form of term-limits with the support of over 25 million Americans. However, in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that State set term-limits for Federal officials were unconstitutional. With the Supreme Court's decision in mind, Colorado voters passed amendment 12 in 1996. The Term Limits Initiative calls for Colorado's elected officials to introduce term-limit legislation, vote in favor of the Congressional Term Limits Amendment, and states that if a member of the congressional delegation does not vote in favor of the amendment then the designation of disregarded voter instruction on term-limits next to their name on the ballot. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record a copy of the amendment 12 language at the end of my statement.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator for yielding. I would now like to finish my comments that I began a few minutes ago. The Wellstone amendment would provide funding for education, nutrition, and health programs for poor children. So, again, as I was speaking about earlier, I want to talk about this from the perspective of a family man and also a small businessman. Joan, my wife, and I started like most American families. After we got our education, we got jobs. We earned a salary and worked hard to save money so that we could incur our first major debt as a family. For most families in this country, their first major debt is when they purchase a home. They are able to incur that commitment only after they have enough income saved up to go ahead and qualify to buy that first house. Most families in America work hard to pay down that debt because they understand that if they pay down that debt, then, in effect, they are beginning to free up their resources so that at some later date they can meet the educational needs of their children, the nutritional needs of their children, and they can meet the health care needs of their children. They also, hopefully will be able to save enough of their resources to get their children started out in life. In addition, by paying off that debt, they begin to build up a reserve in their home that they will be able to use in case of emergency. That is not unlike the situation that we have here in America. That is why it is important that we get deficit spending under control and that we have a balanced budget amendment that will say to the Congress that it can't spend more money than it brings in. Our debt today is greater than $5 trillion. Every year, for the last 28 years, we have continually added to that debt. We have been going in a different direction than the average American family. If we really want a better future for our children and grandchildren, we do not need to establish more Government programs that will cause the deficit to rise instead of fall. Instead, eliminating the deficit is the most unselfish thing that we can do for our children and grandchildren. Now, as a small businessman, a veterinarian, when I started out, I had to go to the local banker to take out a loan. The largest portion of that debt went to purchase a building so that I could take care of my clients and their animals' needs. As time moved along, I worked hard to pay down that debt that I had incurred. I knew that the sooner I paid down that debt, the better I would be able to serve my clients because a smaller debt load would begin to free up my resources for other uses. Instead of paying out money on interest, I was able to buy new equipment and bring in more help so that I could take better care of my clients. I think that these two situations, as a family man and as a businessman, are not unlike what we face as a country. If we, as Members of Congress, face our responsibility as custodians of this country's future, we simply have to eliminate deficit spending. Despite everybody's good intentions, the trend has been in the opposite direction--our national debt has grown larger every year. I think that the most unselfish thing we can do for our children and grandchildren is to eliminate deficit spending and assure them a prosperous future. That is why I am supporting a balanced budget amendment. The only way that we will gather the courage and discipline to address our budgetary problems is if we have a constitutional requirement to balance the Federal budget. Now, many will argue here on the floor that we need to protect particular programs. And lots of times they will couch their arguments in terms of certain benefits for our children. But what they really want is to save their own jobs and programs. Because additional waivers or exceptions to the balanced budget requirement will preserve the deficit spending status quo, their primary concern cannot really be our children's future. The balanced budget amendment and eliminating deficit spending is the approach that concentrates on providing for our children's future. It is unselfishly saying that we want a better life for our children and grandchildren. That is why I am such a strong supporter of a balanced budget amendment. I wanted to share with Members of this body my experience as a family man and a small businessman. I don't think that the Federal budget is unlike what the average American family or small businessman faces on a daily basis. They understand the need to eliminate deficit spending, to pay down their debt. I just hope that this body has the same foresight that many American families and small business people in this country have. I yield back the remainder of my time to the Senator from Utah. Thank you. Mr. DURBIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. ALLARD. Madam President, last week I talked about the balanced budget movement from a historical perspective. I discussed the fact that when our country started out as a new nation, policymakers felt a moral and ethical obligation to balance the budget year after year after year, and they did that. However, as time evolved, a process was developed under which programs were funded based on demand. This process produced what are called entitlement programs. It created a blank check. As a result of these entitlements and the corresponding lack of accountability, there is no longer the same concern to balance the budget that existed during the time of the Founders. I wanted to talk a little bit this afternoon from the perspective of a family man who has grown up in America, from the perspective of a small businessman who has had to start his business from scratch. Those obligations that I faced as a family man and those obligations that I faced as a businessman are pretty much the same obligations that we are facing as a Congress, as the leaders of this country, this great country called America. Thus far, we have had two amendments presented before this body which, in effect, provide for exceptions to a balanced budget amendment. One is the Durbin amendment, and the most recent one is the welfare amendment. These amendments are unnecessary. We already have a provision to meet emergencies in the balanced budget amendment proposal that is before us. Madam President, 60 percent of the vote in the House and 60 percent of the vote in the Senate, or 261 votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate, and we will be able to waive the provisions of this amendment to meet those national emergencies. Madam President, I understand I will have an opportunity later on to continue with some of my remarks and that there is an order on the floor for another amendment. I will continue my remarks at another time. I yield the floor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, Mr. President, I would like to recognize the leadership of my colleague, the Senator from Utah, on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. One of my primary campaign promises when I was running for election to the U.S. Senate was to push for a balanced budget, and I believe that the best way to force us to finally take the courageous steps necessary to balance the budget is to establish a constitutional balanced budget requirement. Statutory balanced budget requirements have proven to be insufficient as Congress has proven its willingness to amend any such requirements. I must emphasize that the modern congressional movement to establish balanced budget requirements is not a partisan issue. In 1935, the first bill to establish a statutory balanced budget requirement was introduced by Senator Millard Tydings, a Democrat from Maryland. In the following year, Congressman Harold Knutson, a Republican from Minnesota, introduced the first proposal to place a balanced budget requirement in the United States Constitution. In light of the bipartisan history of the balanced budget movement, I urge all of my colleagues to join together in making the balanced budget amendment the first and most important accomplishment of this 105th Congress. During the 104th Congress, the Federal Government surpassed a milestone that our forefathers would have never thought possible--the debt incurred by the Federal Government surpassed $5 trillion dollars. This is an astronomical sum of money, and it is something of which we, as policymakers, should be ashamed. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to do better. We owe it to them to pass a constitutional requirement to mandate that the Federal Government balance its budget by 2002. Most people believe that the issue of balanced budget constitutional amendment is a relatively recent issue. But this issue actually surfaced before the Constitution was ratified by the States. New York and Rhode Island both included requests that the Federal government be restricted in its ability to borrow money. Gilbert Livingston of New York proposed ``that no money be borrowed on the credit of the United States without the assent of two thirds of the senators and representatives present in each house.'' Admittedly, Mr. Livingston was an anti-Federalist who did not believe in the Union. But he and other anti-Federalists realized that forcing the Federal Government to live within its means would provide an important check on its power. Requiring the Government to go to the people for all of the revenues necessary to run its programs would force it to be accountable to the people. Indeed, in 1779 when the United States was still governed by the Articles of Confederation, Benjamin Franklin angrily complained of the extravagances of the Federal Government that were afforded by its ability to print money to pay its bills. While the Government was having difficulties raising the funding to carry out the Revolutionary War, it still managed to spend large sums of money to pay for tea and other wasteful items. The dire financial straits of the Federal Government in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War seem to have minimized the concern that the founders had to constrain the ability of the Federal Government to incur debt. In addition, Framers of the Constitution such as Alexander Hamilton believed that the Federal Government would voluntarily restrain itself, and that the public would provide an adequate check if the Government showed a tendency to get out of line. But it was not long before some in the Federalist Party began to voice their support for a constitutional balanced budget requirement. Thomas Jefferson was concerned with what he considered to be the extravagant spending practices of the administration of John Adams and he felt that the best way to correct this problem was to take away the ability of the Federal Government to incur debt. He wrote to John Taylor on November 26, 1798, ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its Constitution; I mean an additional article, taking from the Federal Government the power of borrowing.'' Thus, Jefferson saw a balanced budget requirement as the proper tool to constrain the Federal Government within its proper boundaries and to cure the Government of any wasteful tendencies. In spite of the concerns of those like Jefferson who felt that the Federal Government needed to be constrained by a constitutional balanced budget requirement, the Federal Government seemed to be able to balance its budget except in times of war and economic downturns until the 1930's. Budget deficits were considered to be abnormalities and Federal officials felt that they had a moral responsibility to their children and grandchildren to balance the budget and even pay down the Federal debt. In his first inaugural address, Andrew Jackson stated, ``Some of the Topics which shall engage my earliest attention as intimately connected with the prosperity of our beloved country, are, the liquidation of the national debt, and the introduction and observance of the strictest economy in the disbursements of the government.'' Jackson detested debt because of an experience that he had had as a young man in which he was nearly ruined financially as a result of a debt on a parcel of land that he had acquired as a young man. Jackson considered it to be a matter of public honor and morality to retire the national debt. In a speech in 1831, he commented that when the debt was retired, ``we shall then exhibit the rare example of a great nation, abounding in all the means of happiness and security, altogether free from debt.'' Although the debt had been paid down on a nearly continuous basis after the United States was brought under the Constitution in 1789, Jackson finished paying off the debts incurred by the Nation in the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 in 1834--and became the first and only administration to ever retire the debt of the Federal Government of the United States. In 1837, the worst economic downturn in the history of the United States aside from the Great Depression caused the Government to resume running occasional deficits. But Jackson's successors shared his belief in a balanced budget and ran balanced or surplus budgets except in times of war or economic downturn. In 1842, President John Tyler wrote that Americans were a ``people rendered illustrious among nations by having paid off its whole debt.'' The Republican Party held the White House almost continuously from the outbreak of the Civil War until the beginning of the Great Depression. And although these Presidents managed to continue the trend of balancing the budget or running surpluses except in times of war or economic downturn, these Presidents were not the model of efficient government that we should aim to follow. Prior to the Civil War, the Federal Government spent a record $74 million. After the Civil War, Federal Government expenditures never dipped below $244 million and often times was in excess of $300 million, an increase of more than 400 percent. As the Federal Government increased its spending, it expanded into new areas of influence. Prior to the Civil War, the Federal Government had mainly confined itself to matters relating to the national defense. After the war, however, the Federal Government increasingly took over waterway and transportation improvement projects from the State and local governments. Although the Federal Government only spent a total of $3.7 million on river improvement and harbor construction between 1850 and 1860, it spent $53.8 million from 1869 to 1879--an increase of over 1,300 percent. Not only did the nature of Federal Government expenditures change, the attitude about fiscal responsibility had changed as well. As a favor to their business constituencies, the Republicans were intent upon maintaining exorbitantly high tariffs ranging from the 20 percent Morrill tariff which was enacted to finance the Civil War in 1861 to the Dingley tariff of 1898 and the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, both of which were in excess of 45 percent. As these tariffs represented an enormous tax upon farmers and other consumers, they were very unpopular. The tariffs generated enormous budget surpluses and, as a result, they were hard to justify to the public. Rather than finding ways of returning the money to the people, Congress and the Republican administrations engaged in unprecedented spending binges on patronage and questionable pork-barrel and logrolling projects to reduce the budgetary surpluses to politically acceptable levels. At the same time, they proclaimed their support for balanced budgets to the public. Thus, President Benjamin Harrison described unnecessary debt as criminal even though spending increased during his term from $299 million in 1889 to $383 million in 1893. The rules of the Federal budgetary game changed with the New Deal policies developed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the wake of the Great Depression, the worst economic downturn in the history of our Nation. FDR was a well-intentioned man whose primary goal was to end the suffering that he witnessed with any means at his disposal FDR detested the tendency of economists and others around him to try to think about the long-term implications of his policies, but instead preferred to devise immediate solutions to the problems that the people faced. He established numerous agencies and public works projects to try to pull the Nation out of the depression while continuing to profess a sincere desire to balance the budget. One of FDR's fiscal innovations that has had the most profound impact on our economy was the widespread use of entitlement programs which are defined as programs that make payments to all individuals or companies who are eligible by current law and who apply for the benefits. The most popular entitlement program created during FDR's administration was Social Security. Also created under FDR were the Federal farm assistance programs which I am proud to say we successfully reformed and made more market-oriented during last year's debate on the farm bill. Most economists agree that the Great Depression ended only with the outbreak of World War II, but the legacy of the Depression era programs has lived on. Several new entitlement programs have since been established, most notably the Medicare and Medicaid health programs which were started as a part of LBJ's Great Society fiscal agenda. Although FDR was not completely convinced by Keynesian economic theories, in the aftermath of FDR's administration, Keynesian economics became an accepted theory in determining fiscal policy. This theory, best expressed by the Employment Act of 1946, stated that the Government would run balanced or surplus budgets in times of economic prosperity, but it would seek to run deficits and stimulate the economy during recessions through increases in discretionary spending projects. This theory encouraged a reluctant President Eisenhower to run a deficit throughout much of his administration stating: Balancing the budget will always remain a goal of any administration . . . That does not mean to say that you can pick any specific date and say, ``Here, all things must give way before a balanced budget.'' It is a question of where the importance of a balanced budget comes in; but it must be the aim of any sound money program . . . When it becomes clear that the Government has to step in, as far as I am concerned, the full power of Government, of Government credit, and of everything the Government has will move in to see that there is no widespread unemployment and we never again have a repetition of conditions that so many of you here remember when we had unemployment. Based on Keynesian economic theories, Eisenhower approved discretionary spending increases in fiscal year 1958 and fiscal year 1959 which resulted in deficits of $3 and $13 billion respectively. This regard for Keynesian economic theories caused administrations to change their views of deficit spending and encouraged the Federal Government to try to micromanage the economy and incur massive deficits in the process. No longer did policymakers consider it such a moral obligation to balance the Federal budget. In the entire postwar period, we have run budgetary surpluses only eight times. It is curious to note that the surpluses in times of economic prosperity in the Keynesian economic theories have almost entirely failed to materialize. The last budgetary surplus occurred in 1969 and the deficits run by the Federal Government have grown increasingly larger reaching a high of nearly $330 million in fiscal year 1992. Luckily, Keynesian economics has increasingly been ignored in recent years as a usable guide for fiscal policy. It has been realized that the Federal Government does not have enough information at its disposal to accurately predict the onset of a recession. In addition, by the time a stimulus package can get through Congress, economic recovery is often already underway. In cases such as these, precious taxpayer dollars are wasted while the economy may be overstimulated resulting in inflation. In spite of the recent turn away from Keynesian economic theories, in general the Federal Government's deficits have been growing larger over time, and this trend is only expected to continue. This is due to the rapid growth of entitlement and other mandatory spending. About 55 percent of our spending went to entitlements in fiscal year 1996, and, as projected by the CBO in its January 1997 report on the Economic and Budget Outlook for fiscal years 1998 to 2007, entitlement spending is expected to top $1 trillion in fiscal year 1999. This increased entitlement spending is expected to be accompanied by enormous deficits. In its January 1997 report, the CBO forecasts the deficit to reach roughly $280 billion in fiscal year 2007 if discretionary spending is allowed to increase with inflation. This increase in entitlement spending also corresponds to a continued large role for the Federal Government in the economy, equal to 21 percent of GDP during the next decade, of which 14 percent of GDP would be represented by spending on entitlements by 2002. We simply cannot allow this to happen. We must establish efficiency and accountability in the Federal Government. Entitlements, which automatically grow without any action on the part of Congress, are causing these tremendous deficits. Although we can reduce the deficit by freezing discretionary spending, entitlement reform that puts these programs on sound economic footing is absolutely necessary in order for us to balance the budget. As the 105th Congress begins, one of the first things that we need to do is to get our fiscal house in order and send to the States a balanced budget requirement. It is a disgrace that in fiscal year 1996, we burdened the hard-working taxpayer with $241 billion in net interest charges on the national debt. It is even more disgraceful that if we fail to balance the budget, the resulting higher interest rates and lower foreign exchange rate will doom our children to a lower standard of living than they otherwise would have. For our children and our grandchildren, we, the Members of the 105th Congress must be courageous and pass a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original sponsor of the citizen Congress Act with my distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Senator Bill Frist. As a Member of the other body, I was an original sponsor of this bill with Representative Mark Sanford, who reintroduced the CCA earlier this month. This legislation is an important element of true political reform. A first step was the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act which applied labor laws to Congress. The next important step is the Citizen Congress Act. This act is to be a reminder to members of both legislative bodies that we are citizen legislators in the true sense of service as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. The CCA is a comprehensive bill which eliminates many of the perks and privileges which Congress are afforded. It uses the congressional pension system to encourage limited service and calls for full disclosure of estimates of our retirement benefits. It also eliminates the automatic COLA for Member's salaries. If we want a salary increase, we will have to vote for an increase. The CCA disallows any personal use of frequent flier mileage accrued on official business. This bill would limit the use of frequent flier miles for only trips to and from the Senator's State. The CCA also bans all postal patron franked mailings. This means no more unsolicited mailings to constituents. Also, Senators will no longer be able to travel on military aircraft, except where there is space available on already scheduled military flights or where there are no commercial flights to a specific destination. Members will no longer receive free medical attention at military hospitals unless they are veterans and can receive this medical benefit like any other veteran. Finally, the CAA eliminates special parking privileges for Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and foreign diplomats at Washington National and Dulles airports. I believe this will make us more responsive to our constituents because no longer will we have the special privileges which citizens are not given. Legislators should have to walk in the same shoes as everyone else, thus making them more sensitive to the concerns and trials of the constituents which we are serving. Again, I thank Senator Frist for all his hard work and effort in this endeavor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original sponsor of the citizen Congress Act with my distinguished colleague from Tennessee, Senator Bill Frist. As a Member of the other body, I was an original sponsor of this bill with Representative Mark Sanford, who reintroduced the CCA earlier this month. This legislation is an important element of true political reform. A first step was the passage of the Congressional Accountability Act which applied labor laws to Congress. The next important step is the Citizen Congress Act. This act is to be a reminder to members of both legislative bodies that we are citizen legislators in the true sense of service as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. The CCA is a comprehensive bill which eliminates many of the perks and privileges which Congress are afforded. It uses the congressional pension system to encourage limited service and calls for full disclosure of estimates of our retirement benefits. It also eliminates the automatic COLA for Member's salaries. If we want a salary increase, we will have to vote for an increase. The CCA disallows any personal use of frequent flier mileage accrued on official business. This bill would limit the use of frequent flier miles for only trips to and from the Senator's State. The CCA also bans all postal patron franked mailings. This means no more unsolicited mailings to constituents. Also, Senators will no longer be able to travel on military aircraft, except where there is space available on already scheduled military flights or where there are no commercial flights to a specific destination. Members will no longer receive free medical attention at military hospitals unless they are veterans and can receive this medical benefit like any other veteran. Finally, the CAA eliminates special parking privileges for Members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and foreign diplomats at Washington National and Dulles airports. I believe this will make us more responsive to our constituents because no longer will we have the special privileges which citizens are not given. Legislators should have to walk in the same shoes as everyone else, thus making them more sensitive to the concerns and trials of the constituents which we are serving. Again, I thank Senator Frist for all his hard work and effort in this endeavor.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to extend my thanks to other members of the committee, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], who we just heard on the floor, and then the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. I appreciate all of their efforts in making sure that this legislation came out of committee in good shape. I know they worked very hard to make sure that we ended up with a good piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, this has been a bipartisan effort, both Democrats and Republicans working together with the administration to reform the Food and Drug Administration as they apply the laws as they apply to animal drugs. This is the second major reform of the Food and Drug Administration. The first was the Delaney reform, and then this is the second step, which is the animal Food and Drug Administration reform. Both of these provisions are going to be a great help to the agricultural community. We are looking at a crisis as far as approval of animal drugs is concerned. The drugs are being approved at a very slow rate, and it is having an impact on the type of quality and care, not only to the livestock, but also to pets. To further compound this problem, over the past several years, the Food and Drug Administration has taken a number of drugs off of the market, and the research has not been moving along at an adequate enough rate to replace the loss of these particular products. As a consequence of that, we have lost animals to disease and also had an increased mortality rate on animals, which also cuts down on production. When a drug has finally been approved after some time, and I would say, again, an internal audit by the FDA shows it takes an average of 58 months to approve a new drug, this law will take it down to where it actually will take only 6 months. Because of this, the number of drugs that have been approved over the last 23 years have dwindled. We used to have about 60 drugs approved in 1 year, about two decades ago, in 1973; and now, this last year, we have only had 10 approved. This certainly is not keeping up with science. This is a tremendous disincentive for drug companies to create new products when it takes this long extended length of period for approval. And now, in order to develop a new product, we are looking at a cost of anywhere from $15 to $200 million, and yet most of these animal drugs have a very limited market and will generate sales of only a million dollars or less. I think this legislation is going to help solve this problem. It will help make these drugs available for animals, both pets and in the livestock industry, and it is going to move forward many of the advances that should be moved forward and made available to the public. In conclusion, I want to thank again the members of the committee for all their hard work on this issue and I hope that we will continue to move forward in our efforts to reform the Food and Drug Administration.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H.R. 2670) to provide for the release of the reversionary interest held by the United States in certain property located in the county of Iosco, MI, and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2670, sponsored by Congressman James Barcia, provides for the release of a reversionary interest held by the Forest Service in 1.9 acres of land in Iosco County, MI. The land belongs to the local airport but, due to a survey error, has been in private use. Authorities have agreed with the squatter to swap the property being used in exchange for another parcel of equal value. But, the reversionary interest on the 1.9 acres clouds the title and prevents the exchange. This reversionary interest says that when the land is not longer used for airport purposes, it reverts back to the Forest Service. The bill, as amended in subcommittee, provides that, in exchange for adequate consideration, the reversionary interests is relinquished. H.R. 2670 is a noncontroversial bill which was approved by a voice vote in both the subcommittee and full committee on May 30 and June 19, respectively, and enjoys the support of the Department of Agriculture.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H.R. 3387) to designate the Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center located at 1420 Experimental Station Road in Watkinsville, GA, as the J. Phil Campbell, Senior Natural Resource Conservation Center and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3387 is a noncontroversial bill sponsored by Congressman Charlie Norwood. H.R. 3387 renames the Southern Piedmont Conservation Research Center located in Watkinsville, GA, as the J. Phil Campbell, Sr. Natural Resource Conservation Center. The bill memorializes Mr. Campbell, an FDR appointee, for his leading role in locating the Center in Watkinsville and for maintaining funding for the center. H.R. 3387 was approved by a voice vote in the Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research, and Forestry and in the full Committee on Agriculture on May 30 and June 19, respectively. Moreover, Secretary Glickman has provided Chairman Roberts with a letter, dated June 19, which states that the Department has no objections to H.R. 3387, and which further acknowledges Mr. Campbell's profound contributions to American agriculture.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3387, the bill just considered.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3464.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2670, the bill just considered.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H.R. 3464) to make a minor adjustment in the exterior boundary of the Devil's Backbone Wilderness in the Mark Twain National Forest, MO, to exclude a small parcel of land containing improvements, and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3464, sponsored by Congressman Mel Hancock, provides for a slight adjustment removing 2 acres from Devil's Backbone Wilderness area within the Mark Twain National Forest. This is necessary to allow for a land exchange between the Forest Service and a family which inadvertently made improvements on a parcel of Forest Service/Wilderness land. Once removed from Wilderness designation, the Small Tracts Act will permit an administrative exchange of land. This bill was approved by a voice vote in both the subcommittee and full committee, and the Department of Agriculture has recommended its approval.